Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

August 25, 2010 Volume 41 No. 16 Zoning Bulletin Thus, the Department concluded that although the operation of the Electric Station would be "out of character with the existing agricultural land uses in the vicinity of the proposed rezoning," it would not necessarily be "out of character with the land uses al- lowed under the existing A -2 zoning district." Ultimately, the Board of Commissioners of the County (the "County ") approved the requested rezone. Plains Grains Limited Partnership (Plains Grains) challenged the rezone in district court. Among other things, it alleged that the zone change constituted impermissible spot zoning. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and decid- ing the matter on the law alone, the district court issued summary judgment in favor of the County. In so deciding, the district court concluded that the availability of the special use permit option ren- dered unnecessary the Urquhart's zone change request. Plains Grains appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The Supreme Court of Montana held that the rezoning of the Urquhart's land constituted illegal spot zoning. In so holding, the court disagreed with the district court, say- ing: "[t]he fact that SME arguably could have pursued a special use permit [did] not undermine Plains Grains' spot zoning claim." Whether a special use permit would have been granted to SME would have been at the discretion of the county's board of adjust- ment. Also, the Urquharts and SME opted to pursue the rezoning option rather than the special permit option. Therefore, said the court, the special use permit option did not render unnecessary the zone change request. The court then set to determine whether the rezone constituted il- legal spot zoning by applying a three -part test. A rezone constitutes illegal spot zoning, explained the court, "regardless of variations in factual scenarios," if the following three conditions are met: (1) the requested use differs significantly from the prevailing land use in the area; (2) the area requested for rezone is "'rather small' in terms of the number of landowners benefitted by the requested zone change "; and (3) the requested zone change is "in the nature of `special legis- lation' designed to benefit one or a few landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowners or the public." Here, the court found these three conditions were met: (1) The proposed rezone to facilitate construction of the Electric Station would have "create[d] an island of heavy industrial zoning within a 6 © 2010 Thomson Reuters